Talk:Oral Roberts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nonsense[edit]

From Votes for Deletion

What is that doing here? Axeman89 17:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Native American ancestry[edit]

An interesting note on Oral Roberts is he is of Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma descent, his mother being 1/4.

But does this need to be mentioned in the article? Axeman89 17:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; this is a biographical article and it is worthy of mention. Roberts' family is part of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, and he considers himself a Cherokee. See further below in the discussion for more details.

Yes, it is important because there was a big christian revival among the Cherokee of Oklahoma and that background is important to understand his later theology. Kenneth Copeland is also third generation from the big Oklahoma revival and also part native American.

If he's Cherokee, why is there a link to the Choctaw category at the bottom?
Considering all of the people in this country who claim partial Cherokee ancestry, those Indians were a very busy tribe. Of course, none of this ancestry is verifiable.Lestrade (talk) 11:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]
The only thing that is verifiable is that he, his entire family, and his "Native" mother are all listed as White on census records. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this on http://www.cherokeecommunityofcentralcalifornia.org/

"Oral Roberts, twentieth century evangelist and founder of Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, Oklahoma, is a card-carrying member of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, but many say he is also Cherokee."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.26.96 (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


http://www.cherokeecommunityofcentralcalifornia.org is a ten-year-old site without any references to back up the statement. 'Many say' is not fact but folklore and hearsay perhaps only a repetition of what Oral Roberts himself said. If he was a "card-carrying" member of the Choctaw, shouldn't there be a citation from their site, backing this up or a published article? This is an unsubstantiated claim without any proof, meaning a scholarly source or a credible article to prove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professorclee (talk • contribs) 16:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- There are various claims on the internet that Oral Roberts was both a "card-carrying member of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma" and "of Cherokee descent", but neither claim seems to be verified. Neither of his parents are listed on the Dawes Rolls. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

A warning to all readers is that the external link "cephasministry.com" is arguably an anti-Charismatic/Pentacostal website. Oral Roberts and other healing evangelists are respected ministers among Charismatic and non-Charismatic evangelicals alike!

What color is the sky on your planet? Here on Earth, Roberts is known as the clown who claimed that god was holding him hostage and would kill him if he didn't cough up eight million bucks in ransom.
For that matter, Roberts is not a "healing" evangelist at all. He is a "pretend to heal people so he can fleece the marks" evangelist, in the mold of Elmer Gantry. He is a fraud, and would be a disgrace to Christianity, if he were indeed a Christian.

I beg to differ - greatly. Oral Roberts and many other well-known charismatic and pentecostal teachers (eg Benny Hinn, Rick Joyner) have been criticized quite heavily from non-Charismatic Christians. --One Salient Oversight 06:33, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While this is true, it is not such acrosss the board. There are many non-Charismatic evangelicals who support these ministries. My main point above is that the "cephasministry" website is anti-Charismatic in its views. The Charismatic Christian community is not some fringe group. It is a major sector of the evangelical Christian community that is growing every day.

Considering that all the present links are to organizations founded by Roberts, neutral or even negative assessments would be welcome to restore neutrality.

You people have no right to judge the legitamacy of Oral Roberts. Keep objectivity, ok? --Okiefromokla 15:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have a right to judge, but not to edit. Our right to judge comes with our membership in the human race, our right to edit is limited by objectivity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.26.117.1 (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

While it might be nice if Oral had scrupulously credited God with raising the dead each time he talked about it, the fact seems to be that he actually did say he (Oral) raised the dead. ("I had to stop and go back in the crowd and raise the dead person so I could go ahead with the service.") It's not for us to clean up what he said so it seems doctrinally sound. I think there's some question over whether God wanted $8 million for "sending medical missionaries to Africa" or to "pay Oral Robert's medical school for the training of physicians, ostensibly to be used as missionaries in Africa." - Nunh-huh 01:58, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

TULSA, Okla. – Evangelist Oral Roberts, whose plea for $8 million to save his life focused attention on his ministry earlier this year, said this week he has raised the dead and will return after his own death to rule alongside Jesus Christ.

Roberts’ comments, made to about 5,000 people at the closing session of the three-day Charismatic Bible Ministries Conference on Thursday, were broadcast nationally Friday on his son’s "Richard Roberts Live" program.

Richard Roberts acknowledged his father’s statements were sure to arouse controversy. He held up a newspaper with a headline about Oral Roberts’ claims.

"The good news is, they're printing the truth," Richard Roberts said. "I’m so glad the newspapers are beginning to get the story right..."

The elder Roberts, whose 40-year ministry originated with tent revivals in which the sick came to be healed, told his fellow ministers Thursday he also has brought the dead back to life.

"All of us in the ministry could talk about that—of certain dead ones raised, died right while I was preaching," Roberts said. "I had to stop and go back in the crowd and raise the dead person so I could go ahead with the service.

"That did increase my altar call (audience response) that night," Roberts said, drawing laughter from the crowd at Oral Roberts University’s Mabee Center.

On his program Friday, Richard Roberts said be recalled one instance in his boyhood when he said a dead child was brought back to life by his father.

"Right in the middle of my dad’s sermon a woman came running up to the platform with her baby in her arms screaming ‘My baby has just died,’" Richard Roberts said.

"The child had died during the service. My dad had to stop in the middle of his sermon and lay hands on that child. And that child came back to life again.

"There are probably dozens and dozens and dozen of documented instances of people who have been raised from the dead," Richard Roberts said after he and guests on the program recounted stories about the dead being revived…

[Oral] Roberts has criticized media coverage of his request for money to fund medical missionary scholarships at ORU. In March 1986, he said God told him to raise $8 million from followers or his life would be forfeited by the end of March 1987…

On April 1, Roberts announced that the money had been raised and that his life had been spared.

Your taking these quotes out of context and forgetting that these were directed at an audience who understood what he meant. Please leave the content of these articles to those who have a better understanding of the facts and doctrines of these Christian leaders, not the liberal media.

He's on videotape making these statements. If he wasn't careful about his statements regarding the facts and doctrines of Christianity—surely a defect in a minister— that should be mentioned in his article. - Nunh-huh 06:24, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time arguing. His ministry has been in existance since 1947 and is still going strong. If it was truly fraudulent, you'd think the authorities would have done something about it by now.

Well, no, I wouldn't think so, but that's rather beside the point I was addressing, which is that he said that he'd raised the dead. His son has also said that he's raised the dead. - Nunh-huh 22:09, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
By the way - the usage of the term "Liberal Media" in order to discredit historical sources is not a good thing to do. I have spent two years training in a Bible College and have been teaching and preaching from the scriptures for over ten years. It is my asertion and belief that Oral Roberts has some seriously erroneous theological teachings - one of which is the fact that he makes prophecies that don't come true and make claims that can't be verified (ie the raising of someone from the dead). One Salient Oversight 01:25, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While on the subject of editing; it should be clarified that Oral Roberts did not gradute from OBU, while he did attend their for a semester and serve as an assistant basketball coach there he did not gradute and does not have any sort of degree from OBU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.101.77 (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of Oral Roberts' doctrines[edit]

I would like to discuss the statements listed in the talk section stating that Oral Roberts believes that he heals and has raised the dead of his own accord. Just because he said he had to "raise the dead person", doesn't mean he believes he has that power. That line of reasoning is a straw man. Quoting DIRECTLY from Dr. Roberts' book "If You Need Healing, Do These Things" (copyright 2002: Richard and Lindsay Roberts):

"I cannot insist too strongly that you put your faith in God. Have confidence in His servant or prophet, but put your faith in Almighty God, not man. The person God has chosen to help you receive healing is an instrument only -- the means to an end. Your deliverance is by faith in God and His power...God, not the prophet or preacher, is the Healer." (pp. 43-44)

When Oral Roberts said that he had to "raise the dead person", he was saying that to people who knew what he meant. That being that he had to pray for the person to be raised from the dead. Since his audience knew he meant this, it was merely a short-hand way of saying "I had to pray that God would raise the dead person by the power of the Holy Spirit, but it has nothing to do with me." If he said that every time he discussed a miracle, it would be very cumbersome. The majority of his audience KNOWS he doesn't believe he has the power to heal.

Also, there was at one point a statement in the article stating that Oral Roberts believed he was going to "rule with Christ after his death". Of course he believes this! All evangelicals that believe in the rapture, tribulation, and millenium do. In Revelation 5:9-10, it says, "And they sang a new song, saying: "You are worthy to take the scroll, And to open its seals; For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, And have made us kings and priests to our God; And we shall reign on the earth"(NKJV). Therefore, a doctrine believed by many Charismatics and Evangelicals is that after the tribulation, all those who believed in Jesus Christ as Savior will return with Him to reign during the Millenium.

I hope this clarifies some things...the above quotation was "straight from the horse's mouth". Therefore, it should be presented as such in the Wikipedia article.

So. When Peter and John heal the lame man in Acts 3.1-10, who healed him? Was it God or was it Peter and John? Obviously it is God who heals him, but the action is intricately linked to the work of the two apostles.
The fact that Oral Roberts claimed to have brought someone back to life is in the same vein. What you seem to be arguing about is that it was God that caused the man to be raised, not Oral Roberts. For my mind, it is the same difference. God did the raising, and so did Oral Roberts. So the article's claim that "Oral Roberts claims to have healed someone" is not really the issue here.
So while Oral Roberts' audience knows that he has no power to heal, they do believe that God heals through him. All we're doing here is talking semantics. The Biblical witness puts healing into the hands of God - and yet the language that is used in the New Testament indicates that it is okay to say "Peter healed a lame man".
Mind you, I think that Oral Roberts' claim here is false. I don't believe that God raised a man to life through his ministry. I think he lied to make his fans go ga-ga.
But Oral Roberts also claimed that a 900ft tall Jesus appeared to him and told him to found some medical center. If you look at what Roberts said at the time and then looked at what actually happened you can therefore make the assumption that Roberts' prophecy was wrong. In my books, that makes him a false prophet.
Many evangelicals do not believe in the rapture and the tribulation. We are called Amillennialists.
Also see http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/ReligDeadRaised3.htm
and Criticisms of Charismatic and Pentecostal belief --One Salient Oversight 07:12, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, well that's your opinion, but if all you can give me is "evidence" for that originating from people who have an anti-Charismatic viewpoint (such as the "Cephas Ministry" website), all you are giving me is your opinion. Those people are coming from the basic assumption that it is false in the first place. In other words, they are saying "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up". There is more evidence FOR the validity of Oral Roberts' ministry than for the lack of validity of it. I know several people who have received a healing from God through the ministry of the Oral Roberts Evangelistic Association. If you want to discuss prophecies, how about the prophecy given by brother Roberts in the '50s stating that man would not destroy himself through nuclear weaponry in the Cold War. How about how he recieved a prophecy from God predicting the AIDS epidemic, before it was even discovered. That is beside the point. The point is that Christ said that "by their fruits, you will know them" (Matt. 7:20 NKJV). The ministry founded by Oral Roberts has existed since the aftermath of World War II. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is preached by them...the message that eternal life comes only through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. They have a 24/7 prayer ministry that anyone can call into for prayer for salvation, healing, and deliverance (and they don't have to give money to be prayed for). He founded a University that opens classes with prayer and requires students to live by an honor code, as well as requiring them to go to the church of their choice every sunday. This school was rated the best in its region by The Princeton Review and U.S. News and World Report (see http://www.oru.edu/news/newsarc_20040824.htm). So, look at the fruits. Just because the City of Faith failed, does not mean it was not in the plan of God to build. God's original plan for mankind was not for it to fall into sin and corruption, yet it did. It takes money to operate a medical school/center. That has to be provided through the hands of men, it will not fall out of Heaven.

Also, as a believer who attends a Charismatic church, let me clarify to you that we believe that anyone can pray with someone to believe for their healing...not only leaders of large ministries. The person who needs the healing can pray for themselves as well. We believe, however, that part of the office of the evangelist is praying for the sick to recover. However, just like Jesus said in Mark 16:14-18, all believers are to preach the Gospel...and also..."they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover" (NKJV). I offer these facts to you out of respect for you as a fellow believer. God BLESS you...I appreciate the fact that you have been preaching God's Word!

Thankyou for your respectful comments. I'll address the issue of the wikipedia article first before speaking about the fruits of Oral Roberts' ministry.
It is a bit of a logical fallacy to argue that simply because one group of people is opposed to the beliefs of another group, that the information they provide to attack that group is somehow tainted and wrong. Just because there are anti-charismatic websites out there that have information that attack Oral Roberts, doesn't mean that the information they are using is somehow wrong.
Yes the Cephas ministry has info that attacks Oral Roberts. But does that make it false? Only if you believe without question that Oral Roberts' position is the correct one and that Cephas ministry is satanically inspired.
So let me ask you this question. Did Oral Roberts claim that someone was raised from the dead during one of his meetings? This has been widely reported in the Christian and non-Christian media. Even if there were a vast left-wing conspiracy amongst the media (which I actually doubt - take the Fox network for starters!) the fact is that the information should be placed within the article. The information needs to be neutrally stated, but it should be there nevertheless.
Now onto other things.
Just because the City of Faith failed, does not mean it was not in the plan of God to build. This is an interesting statement.
Do you believe that God knows the future? More than that, is God sovereign? - that is, does he control every event that happens and has planned this from the beginning of time? If you do, then the notion that God would want a medical center to be built, to tell Oral Roberts that it would be some wondrous place that God would be glorified through, and then for it to be closed down - all that sounds a bit strange.
If you don't believe that God knows the future then you hold to Open Theism. That, to me, is a terrible heresy, because it shows that God is limited by time and subject to it. From my understanding, God created time and is not subject to its limitations.
What do you think? One Salient Oversight 22:31, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
By the way, I Really had to search for the ORU ratings. You gave me a link to the ORU website that claimed that it had made some sort of ratings with The Princeton Review and USNews. I could not find any Princeton review article that verified this, and the USnews one simply listed ORU as good with masters degrees in the west. It was not competing with places like UCLA or Berkley, so I find the ratings system a bit problematic.
Why didn't ORU give links to specific documents that showed their rating rather than give a broad link to the two websites. Actually The Princeton review does not rate ORU in the top 357 http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/rankings/rankingsBest357.asp. What gives?
Moreover, The Princeton Review isn't even affiliated with Princeton University, which is a bit of a bummer because I naturally assumed that it was.
AND... The Princeton Review even has rankings based upon things like acceptance of Marijuana usage, amount of parties attended, best college for beer drinking. Not the sort of thing that endears me to their statistical analysis.
Capitals added for emphasis...my tone is not stern.

Ok, now I believe you have misunderstood ME...I never said God didn't know the future, God is not bounded by time...that has nothing to do with the success or failure of the City of Faith. Many good churches with pastors who are called of God (of EVERY denomonation...not only Charismatic) have closed their doors...lack of MONEY, lack of PEOPLE...I have seen it first hand. Now, would you say that EVERY church that has closed its doors due to these elements was not called of God and was out of God's plan...NO. Same thing with individual people, when they end up leaving the church, this does not mean God did not have a plan for thier lives, circumstances and the gift of free will lead to that. Now, I know some people believe that they were never saved in the first place, but that is another issue that I will not discuss here. The issue here is NOT the sovereignty of God (which He the is TOTALLY omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient...LORD of all! I believe this with my whole heart). That is a red herring. The issue is the free will of man and the fallen state of God's creation. It was God's sovereign plan for a medical center to be built that not only treats the physical and mental ills of people, but the spiritual ills as well. Why would this NOT be in God's plan? However, it failed due to the same reasons good churches of all denomonations fail...lack of MONEY, lack of PEOPLE. I see a terrible double-standard being held by the critics of Charismatic Christians and ministries. They attack the ministers for trying to raise money for their projects, and then when their projects fail, they attack them for "being a false prophet". Instead of spending their time trying to discount "heretics", these people should stop majoring in minors and focus on the Great Commission. THIS is what matters, let God deal with heretics! All our job is is to preach the Gospel and serve God. Like the Westminster Catechism says..."What is the chief end of man? To glorify God and enjoy Him forever." I have been in both Conservative and Charismatic churches, and still continue to have exposure to both, and I do not see any major difference in their theology. The major difference I see is that Conservative churches do not believe the gifts of the Spirit are for today and they believe that God doesn't heal everybody. If you look at any of the major Charismatic organizations' doctrinal statements, the first points are always the sovereignty of God, the Trinity, the fall and redemtion of man, the deity of Christ, the infallability of Scripture, etc. Here are a few examples of some Charismatic doctrinal statements:

So, I want to end by saying...let's keep the MAIN thing the MAIN thing and work TOGETHER to reach the lost! Also, I want to say it is OK to talk about making sure the "scandals" are presented in the article...but what about mentioning all the good things about him too? Yes, there are many! I present this repsectfully.

P.S.: I apologize for the hunting you had to do with that link. ORU's page says it is listed by the Princeton Review as one of the best schools in the West and if you go to this link you will see them listed (they have broken up the list by state). ORU's news release ALSO says that they were rated in the top 50 schools in the Masters-West category. They still have been recognized by these organizations (The Princeton Review is a well-respected academic services organization...they have college test-prep and college stats...I don't think they should rate "beer drinking" or "marajuana use", etc. either...I graduated from a CONSERVATIVE Christian High School that used them for test prep.). ORU has a right to notify people about the fact that they were given good ratings.

Again thanks for your detailed response - I am quite enjoying the chance to have dialogue with you. You don't need to apologise for me hunting around for ORU stuff - that was a choice that I made and I did so mainly because I was surprised that ORU was seen to be reasonably good.
I've actually written quite a lot of articles about Charismatic themes. If you click on my username One Salient Oversight and scroll down the page you will see all the articles that I have written or edited or contributed to.
Unfortunately I am actually writing from a moderate anti-Charismatic perspective. (If I was a radical anti-Caro I'd be condemning you all to hell!) This means that I have inserted comments and external links that seek to place individuals or teachings under scrutiny. I actually want all people who view these articles to be able to access the good and bad points for themselves and be presented with arguments for and/or against.
My magnum opus is Criticisms of Charismatic and Pentecostal belief. About 90% of that article is my work. Fortunately a Vineyard pastor began to edit the article so that certain points raised were given an alternative viewpoint. Have a read through the article - it is quite detailed - and you will pretty much discover the problems that I have with the modern Charismatic movement.
But I do admit that I am sinful, and I ask you to keep me accountable if you read anything that I have written that you know is plain wrong. Please dialogue with me over these articles to make sure that I only ever write the truth, and that I write in a way that is neutral and as unbiased as possible. For example, I use The Apologetics Index as an external link for many of my criticisms. While this site is critical of much in the modern Charismatic and Pentecostal scene, the author is himself a Charismatic. Therefore I am more inclined to trust his articles, which contain many links and references to explore. I don't know much about Cephas but I do know that there are some pretty wacky anti-Caro sites out there that I should not use as backup - so keep me accountable about this.
It would be great if you could get your own userpage and have info on yourself on it. It really helps people to respect and understand where you're coming from. The more work a person does on Wikipedia, the more people learn to respect you.
Finally, if you want a good laugh, go to Wikipedia:Unusual articles.
PS Did you know that Ted Haggard and C. Peter Wagner teach Open Theism? --One Salient Oversight 02:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
By the way I checked Benny Hinn Ministries for the statement of faith. I think I disagree with about half of it - and I don't think Hinn is a believer. Sorry, but when you compare Hinn's teachings with that of scripture, I honestly can't see how someone who believes in 9 persons in the godhead can call themselves a Christian. One Salient Oversight 05:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for my delay in writing...I have been extremely busy these past few days. I will be happy to look through your articles to make sure your information is valid. I will research what you told me about Ted Haggard (I am not familiar with C. Peter Wagner). I'll let you know what I find. Also, I can tell you as a fact that Benny Hinn does not believe there are 9 persons in the godhead. I don't know where you saw that, but that is not valid...for example, here is the excerpt from the statement of faith on his website:

We believe the one true God has revealed Himself as the eternally self-existent, self-revealed "I AM" and has further revealed Himself as embodying the principles of relationship and association, i.e., Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (Deuteronomy 6:4; Mark 12:29; Isaiah 43:10, 11; Matthew 28:19).

I am certain he is a believer...if you have ever attended one of his crusades, you know that he gives a Biblical Gospel message, the delivery is quite similar to that of other great Conservative evangelists. If you want to see the Gospel message given on Benny Hinn's website, click here. I look forward to your response.

P.S.: Thanks for the "unusual article" link! There were some strange things on that!

I'm happy to keep talking about this subject. Please go to my talk page to continue as it is probably best not to clutter up this article's talk page. One Salient Oversight 02:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Witness[edit]

Moved an anon.'s witness from article. The scripture references may have some use to this article's group of editors.

Oral Roberts' cheer that "Something Good is going to happen to you." comes from Nahum 1:7 and several verses in Psalms that reveal that "The Lord is good." 3 John 2, "Beloved, I wish above all things that you would prosper and be in health even as your soul prospers." The revelation of 3 John 2 shows that The Lord is concerned about the well-being of His creation. In Genesis, "As long as the earth remains, there shall be seedtime and harvest." "Touch not mine anointed," means that we should pray and receive God's Word and confirm it in The Holy Bible, and that we should not criticize God's prophets. "The Lord bless you and keep you." "Prepare The Way" for the soon return of The Lord Jesus who is The Only Way to The Father (Our Creator) in Heaven. Thank The Lord for sending His Holy Spirit to live in those who believe.

WBardwin 10:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV[edit]

I marked this article for possible POV problems. The changes made today by 70.244.230.204 provide an overly-positive view of Oral Roberts, with sentences like "This was the largest health facility of its kind in the world, and sought to merged together the healing streams of prayer and medicine as God had revealed it to Oral Roberts." This is language straight from the ministry. We don't know if God revealed it to Oral or not. At the same time, the previous version of the article was a brief biography followed by a list of criticisms. I think we need something in between the two approaches. --Beirne 16:10, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I find it interesting that this entry was flagged over neutrality concerns when I edited it for just that reason. I believe it had been overly critical and too wide ranging in it’s content. For instance, I see on this page discussion about the cause for the closure of the hospital, but it’s stated goal of integrating physical and spiritual treatment has spread. I can't cite, but remember reading articles in magazines like “Reader’s Digest” and “People” about the results of prayer in medical treatment. (Shouldn’t that be a simple cite to a in a separate article about the hospital itself, and “faith healing”?) Additionally the specific phrase about “failure” was deleted. Who among us can know whether some choice that may seem to end in disappointment actually has a greater public &/or spiritual impact in the end? I also edited the active tense of him claiming he did the raising of dead himself instead of directly accrediting it to God. Which of us can say the death was actual, or what exactly he said? However, over the man’s whole ministry he has attributed his both his motivations and results to God’s power, not his own.
Let me conclude by saying that I made these edits in passing (as a result of a Google search that brought me here) not knowing there was such a “contentious” debate over the issue. I have just now also added to the entry about his Cherokee heritage. I knew he was proud of his native heritage but didn’t know exactly how much there was. I find it interesting that is information about the man’s genealogy was left out, but a description of the size and history of the Citiplex towers was included. BTW, Citiplex is linked but there’s nothing there… ? I’ll also add a user profile so I’m not such a mystery person, someday, maybe soon… I will hold off on edits or adding further articles until I have that profile though. I have made small corrections before. 04:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the article was too critical before you edited it. I had noticed it but never quite figured out how to edit it to fix it. You fixed the problem with the article being overly critical but made it too positive in the process. When I said that the language was straight from the ministry I was just using my familiarity with the ministry as a guideline. I later found almost the exact wording in Oral's biography at the ministry page. I don't have a problem with other information that was taken from the article like the information on his books, but saying that God revealed something to Oral Roberts is impossible to verify.
Regarding the COF causing the spread of prayer in healing references would be helpful. They should tell of how the spread was based on the COF and not just the benefits of prayer in the healing process. Maybe the articles you mentioned do but it is unclear here.
As to the Cherokee heritage, people write what they know about and what interests them. I knew about it but never saw wasn't sure how significant being 1/8 Cherokee is. It is certainly fine to add the fact as you did, though. The dangling Citiplex link is normal in Wikipedia. It takes one to the editing page so that they can create the article themselves.
I am going to make one more edit and then the page will be neutral enough for me. I'll leave the advisory there a bit more until there is more discussion or enough time passes with none at all. I'm going to restore the wording saying that he claimed he saw a 900-foot Jesus rather than stating it as a fact. We don't know whether that really happened or not.--Beirne 11:14, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Just a quick tidbit on the Roberts' Native American heritage. Being 1/8 Cherokee in Oklahoma is not unusual, yet and it is culturally significant, as CNO (Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma) has almost 200,000 members, the vast majority of whom reside in Oklahoma and the surrounding states. Futhermore, there is no "limit" as to what amount a person needs to be a member of the Cherokee Nation, rather descendancy from census-like Rolls. It seems that Oral Roberts is quite proud of his Indian ancestry, and in 1963 was nominated "Indian of the year" by the American Indian Exposition. --Tuttobene 01:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Calling him home[edit]

I think the article should include the 1987 incident in which Oral Roberts said that God would "call him home" unless a certain sum was raised. This is surely one of the most memorable and referenced events in the history of the Oral Roberts ministry.

I'd say it warrants a separate article. It was unheard of for a well-known preacher to claim that God is a terrorist, and that he was being held for ransom. If Roberts ever had any credibility at all, he blew it to pieces with that little stunt.
It must be included in this article if Wikipedia is to have any sense of objective encyclopaedic knowledge. Jimmy Swaggart did not claim God would kill him if he didn't raise fourteen million dollars, nor did Benny Hinn, nor did any other television evangelist. Creating a separate article would be a propagandist move intended to deprive students material which is directly pertinent to understanding who this person was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.30.104 (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is surely more memorable and distinctive than the 2004 "wake-up call".

Any knowledgable volunteers? Or suggestions for references? Phiwum 18:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

The recent edits to this article have turned it from an account of Mr Roberts into an attempt to preach to the majority of our readers who are not christians. Therefore I have tagged the article as not having a neutral point of view any more.

This tag can be lifted, but that should only be done when the text no longer reads like an advertisement for Mr Roberts and his businesses and instead starts to look like an entry in an encyclopedia.

If anyone editing here has any questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page and I'll be happy to help out. Thanks. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The edits refered to were copied wholesale from the Oral Roberts homepage and have been removed. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw the NPOV objection on that basis. Much thanks for lokking into this! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup?[edit]

I see the article has been marked for cleanup. Could someone elaborate on what needs to be cleaned up? It's not a great article but a little direction would help. The reasons should be listed on the Wikipedia:Cleanup page and here on the talk page. --Beirne 11:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No clue, I'm removing the tag. fataltourist 22:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the nickname "Oral"?[edit]

Unless I missed it, the article does not answer the question of who he received the much joked-about nickname "Oral"? It seems like an obvious point this article should cover. Peter G Werner 18:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is his real name, surely? David L Rattigan 07:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His first name at birth was Granville, according to the article. "Oral" is a nickname he picked up later, and later seemingly adopted as his legal name. Anyway, the story of how he picked up that name is certainly called for in this article. Peter G Werner 16:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is AlterNet a reliable source?[edit]

A recent edit suggests that Ronald Robert committed suicide because he was a homosexual. The citation is alternet.org. It is not at all obvious to me that this is a reliable source and I tend to think that this gossip and speculation should be removed. Comments? Phiwum 01:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AlterNet is a WP:RS. Arbustoo 21:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Children[edit]

The original article had a gross inaccuracy, and I corrected it. The original article said his two surviving children were Richard and Rebecca. Richard is still around, of course, but it is Oral and Evelyn's other daughter, Roberta Potts, who is still alive. Rebecca Nash is the one who died in a plane crash years ago. (You can find the information at the official Oral Roberts webpage if you're interested.) Contributors to Wikipedia need to be a lot more careful and not make egregious errors like this one.--Susan Nunes, April 15, 2007

What order were his children born in? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and citation[edit]

Thank you for contributing this article to the wiki. As you are aware, many people from all sorts of backgrounds and beliefs come to wikipedia for the facts, hopefully free of opinion and bias. You have a good start in this article but I would like to point out a few things which need attention. Improving this article to be more neutral and based in fact will improve the credibility of your cause. Please consider my notes. -Explain significance of Cherokee link to Christianity and/or Oklahoma history as you had mentioned, with a citation if needed. -A citation would be a good idea with regards to the number of books he has supposedly written -The term 'Healing Crusade' should be re-considered. Is it the actual name he used when referring to these journeys? If not, the term is a bit biased and certainly not common knowledge. I would consider using quotations to reflect that this is indeed the proper term used by Oral, explain the origin of the term, or replace it with something less sensational. -Please consider citing this article more thoroughly, especially around statements of fact, such as referring to '...thousands of people[..] in the healing line', links to the supposed testimony of doctors, the honor code associated with his school, etc. -City of Faith is a title, rather than a commonly used term if I am reading this correctly, you may consier annotating it as such. Again, to people who are not of your faith, nonchalantly referring to something as a City of Faith seems sensational unless there was a commonly understood term by that name with an already implied definition. -A citation on the claim of largest medical facility of its kind and dates of operation would add veracity to your article.

A good article with lots of good work, I hope a few of these suggestions can make it even better! When writing articles, thinking of everyone's point of view makes for a better read, and makes you look good in the process! Regards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Defiance167 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Methodist influences[edit]

This article is missing a key element, namely the influence of the Methodist tradition on his ministry and within the university ... particularly in the 1960s and 1970s. The Roberts family were members of one or more Methodist / United Methodist congregations (First UMC and Will Rogers UMC, to name a couple) in Tulsa during that time, leaving the UMC sometime in the late 1980s. This association was very influencial upon ORU students and graduates of the day. Someone more knowledgeable than me can provide more detailed information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.18.46 (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please add that O.R. was a member of the mainline United Methodist Church since 1968. See his obit at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/15/AR2009121503225.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.126.62 (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

All kidding aside, according to the biography Oral Roberts: An American Life (p.26), his birth name was Granville Oral Roberts, Granville being a family name and Oral being a name made up by his cousin, who later claimed she just liked the sound and didn't think she'd even heard the word before.[1] Since 23 December 2008, this article has apparently stated that his name is "Granville Richard James Oral Roberts III". I find no other source for this name at all, and it was added here by IP editor 72.204.4.71, who more recently made a similar, and more obviously spurious, change to Roberts' name. That edit was reverted immediately but the original "Richard James" edit from 23 December 2008 remained. I have now reverted it.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time to semi-protect?[edit]

Or is the vandalism low level enough to simply deal with it? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Considering his importance in the field of televangelism, it is incredible that there are so few images of this man, let alone free ones. Burpelson AFB (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for additional article information[edit]

In the early 1940's, Mr. Roberts conducted tent revivals/healing meetings in and around Tulsa, Oklahoma, often accompanied by evangelist Steve Pringle and Church of the Nazarene preacher Jo Ella Oliver.

(Miss Oliver later became Jo Ella Herron, my mother.)

Thanks,

Rick Herron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickh1977 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind[edit]

This talk page is meant for improving the article (with reliable/verifiable sources), it's not a forum for personal views on the topic. Hence, comments here about Roberts are almost worthless unless they either cite new sources, or cite sources already in the article along with thoughts on how to deal with those sources. Moreover, the policy on living persons applies to Roberts' living family members and there is also a long standing consensus that BLP tends to apply to en.Wikipedia articles about the lately deceased. Otherwise unpublished recollections from folks who knew Roberts are original research and can't be put in the article. Either way, verifiable published sources must be cited. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP only applies to all living people; where is this supposed consensus that it applies to the recently dead? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

What kind of name is Oral? Is it short for something? 99.53.169.167 (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Cindy Jane[reply]

  • Supposedly it's from Latin, meaning something like "speaker." Very appropriate for a preacher man. 207.157.121.94 (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

War years[edit]

so what was he up to between 1941 and 1945? Consicering he would have been 23 when Pearl Harbor was bombed he would have been just the right age to participate in WWII. Anybody know how he spent those years?66.134.170.155 (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sex sermon[edit]

Is it worth mentioning this? [2]

"Only one organ made to bring forth life—it's the male organ. It's not in lesbianism for the tongue of a female goes into the vagina of another female. It's not in the male where the male organ goes into the part of the, of the body where the, the waste matter comes out of the body, the poison, and he penetrates that part of the body in homosexuality. It's not to be put into the mouth of the man, or the mouth of the man or the woman on the male organ! It is the male organ penetrating the vagina of the woman—the male and the female!..."

Certainly not. It is not notable in the least. Phiwum (talk) 04:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is. Religiously motivated control of peoples' sex lives is rampant in the U.S. and this guy represents a strong advocate for such control. It's the only reason I've heard of him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.183.54.102 (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As weird as the quote is, the idea of an evangelical preacher preaching sex only in the context of heterosexual marriage is not noteworthy. It happens all the time. --Beirne (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It is an important view on his stance, and although his stance on homosexuality as a evangelical preacher is nothing of note, his stance on recreational sex positions is not something that is often discussed in the grounds of evangelical churches- speaking from experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.239.199 (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

I am somewhat surprised that this article contains no paragraph about all the criticism Oral Roberts has faced throughout the years. There have been several scandals surrounding his person and his activities and many of his religious views have been heavily criticized by Christians and non-Christians alike. At the very least I would think that some of those points should be reflected in the article. -- Hadoriel (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cite sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Today's obituary in the Guardian newspaper certainly sets out more detail on scandals and criticism than we currently have in this article. Will try and add something in shortly. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Gwen Gale: The reason I didn't cite any sources is the same reason for why I didn't make the changes myself: I'm no expert on Oral Roberts and I don't really want to become one. If I can add something relevant to a Wiki article I do that, but in this case I think there are others more qualified than I am. Nevertheless. reading through the different obituaries and looking at the history of Oral Roberts University I can't help but notice that Roberts seems to have had quite a lot of critics and was involved in several rather large controversies so I was kinda surprised that this currently isn't really mentioned in this article. Which is why I made my post above on the discussion page. Hadoriel (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the count of lines, the article consists of about 40% controversy and criticism. Obankston (talk) 10:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Controversy wontedly comes with fame. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2nd is subjective[edit]

I see the statement that Oral's impact was 2nd to Billy Graham's. I had removed this because while it was said by an expert, it is a subjective opinion. Even the expert is hedging, saying that it will take the long run to see the impact. There is no easy way to quantify this kind of impact, so this is really just an opinion, no more valid than if someone said Oral was the 2nd worst televangelist. It is good for the article to describe Oral's impact, but this statement doesn't mean much. --Beirne (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I let stand your deletion summarized "The Place for Miracles is Richard's show, not Oral's". Your right, it is Richard's show, not Oral's, my mistake. The solution is that this needs to be a paragraph outlining a history of Oral's television ministry, ending with a statement like "Today, his son Richard continues the ministry with a daily program,...". Maybe I'll add that paragraph someday. Obankston (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but what about the subjective claim that Oral's impact was 2nd to Billy Graham's? --Beirne (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be more specific, noted expert on religion Richard Dawkins called Oral a "Well-heeled, tax-exempt charlatan"[3]. Now I don't believe that should be in the article (I really don't), but the opinion of Oral's impact is just as subjective. --Beirne (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using the Olympics as a precedent for how many, the top three deserve comparison and recognition. I disagree with you deleting the statement without building a consensus in this talk page. There was already a tacit consensus by the fact that 64 watchers let the statement stand for 23 consecutive days. Obankston (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but ranking the top three in the Olympics is an objective measurement. This is the subjective view of one theologian. I waited a couple of days for a reply and when there wasn't one I figured I could delete the line. Plus you had a chance to give a reply to my first message and instead you talked about Richard's show. If no one is going to discuss the issue I have to assume no one cares. Also, the fact that people let the line stand doesn't mean anything. I've seen lots of errors and other material that weren't up to Wikipedia standards left in articles without anyone doing anything about it. --Beirne (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I lean in favor of including the expert's statement, but including attribution or other text (such as "according to one authority"). It's an important assertion and helps put Roberts in context. I would not oppose including Dawkins's statement either, with attribution, given Dawkins's importance as a religious skeptic. I tend to think, however, that these kind of statements are better placed in the detailed discussion of his career rather than in the lede.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could live with the kind of qualification you suggest for the 2nd in impact. Saying something like "according to one authority" would be more accurate than the original form, which sounded like a confirmed fact. --Beirne (talk) 06:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Choose which form of attribution you want, and I'll insert the statement with citation in the section →Ministry and university:

  • According to one authority, in conservative Protestant culture, his ministry had a worldwide impact second only to Billy Graham.
  • In conservative Protestant culture, according to one authority, his ministry had a worldwide impact second only to Billy Graham.
  • In conservative Protestant culture, his ministry had a worldwide impact second only to Billy Graham, according to one authority.
  • In conservative Protestant culture, his ministry was considered to have a worldwide impact second only to Billy Graham.
  • In conservative Protestant culture, his ministry was viewed as having a worldwide impact second only to Billy Graham.
  • In conservative Protestant culture, his ministry was reputed to have a worldwide impact second only to Billy Graham.

Obankston (talk) 07:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with the first one, but any of the first three would work. --Beirne (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I used the first one. Obankston (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I put the reference back with it. --Beirne (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Occam's razor says that the reference one or two lines down was sufficient. But a little extra doesn't hurt. Obankston (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was making it easier for the reader, who will not have to look for the reference two sentences ahead after another reference to find out who the one authority is. --Beirne (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Obankston (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

abundant life?[edit]

I added a clarification tag to the statement that Oral laid the foundation for abundant life. It is obviously something he promoted, but I think technically Jesus laid the foundation for abundant life. Could someone who understands this better clarify this? --Beirne (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, technically the life and teachings of Jesus and his disciples in the Bible laid the foundations for most of Christianity, but the interpretation, teachings, use of terms, and practical application to real life have varied greatly among different groups in the last two millenia. The term Abundant Life primarily refers to a particular collection of Christian interpretations, teachings, use of terms, and practical application to real life. Oral Roberts used this term to name his The Abundant Life magazine [4] and organizations like the Abundant Life Prayer Group. The term Abundant Life could also be loosely described as a movement, within which organizations make the term part of their title, adherents define their personal goals, attitudes, and lifestyle, and there are leaders and followers, teachers, role models, and those who emulate them. Obankston (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the use of the term abundant life in the article Oral Roberts, we could say "teachings of abundant life", but prosperity gospel is a peer term to abundant life, so we could just as easily say "laid the foundations of the prosperity gospel and abundant life teachings" or "laid the foundations of the teachings of the prosperity gospel and abundant life." By popular misconception, Oral Roberts is associated with the prosperity gospel, but in actuality he is more associated with abundant life teachings. Obankston (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go for "laid the foundations of the prosperity gospel and abundant life teachings", or maybe "movements" instead of "teachings", assuming that there is enough on "abundant life" to call it a movement. --Beirne (talk) 11:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As described in Talk:Abundant_Life#What_kind_of_concept_is_.22abundant_life.22.3F, abundant life is mostly a concept used in other movements, not a movement itself. So I agree with "laid the foundations of the prosperity gospel and abundant life teachings." The expansion of this thought in →Ministry and university already includes the word "teachings". Obankston (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm skeptical about "abundant life" as a concept (see the discussion just linked to), but "teachings" would at least describe what kind of thing it is more accurately. --Beirne (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a consensus to make the change to the article by adding the word "teachings"? It would be an improvement from what stands now. Enough improvement to remove the {{Clarify}} tag? Obankston (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me. --Beirne (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article stub for abundant life. There have been some discussions on improving this article at Talk:Abundant Life. While working on the Oral Roberts article, I used this article stub as a holding place for some material related to the Oral Roberts article but did not belong there. Unfortunately, writing new articles is not my strong point, so I am hoping that someone else will pick this up. The concepts Word of Faith, Prosperity Gospel, Health and Wealth Gospel, and Abundant Life are closely related, but not identical. The four articles are interlinked, and there is activity on the first three. Obankston (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard of "abundant life" being used in the same way as the other three concepts, but I may just not be familiar with it. I'll say more in the discussion for the abundant life article. --Beirne (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most notable criticisms?[edit]

The second paragraph says: "...he became embroiled in controversies and criticism from both Christians and non-Christians alike, particularly around the personal wealth that he accumulated from donations." While his personal wealth was an issue, I thought the bigger controversies were the 900-foot Jesus and saying God would call him home if people didn't donate enough. Also, some sources for the criticism should be referenced, especially for the Christian part. I know it is true but but that part of the statement is a bit vague. --Beirne (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The vagueness in the intro is a summary to the details that follow in the body of the article, not a place for statistics or definitions. It is subjective which controversy is the biggest, different people have different complaints. My biggest complaint and the complaints of people I knew at the time it happened are irrelevant to the article. My proposal is to replace the entire sentence.
Change from:

During his ministry that exceeded six decades, reaching millions of people[quantify] around the world[vague], he became embroiled in controversies and criticism from both Christians[who?] and non-Christians[who?] alike, particularly around the personal wealth that he accumulated from donations.

Change to (option #1, using quote):

Over a period of six decades, he "attracted millions of followers worldwide and made him one of the most recognizable and controversial religious leaders of the 20th century."[1]

Change to (option #2, rewording quote):

As one of the most famous but also controversial religious leaders of the 20th century, his ministries reached millions of followers worldwide over six decades.[1]

Obankston (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point about not wanting too much detail in the lead. Part of the problem, though, was that the article did not back up the claim about both Christians and non-Christians having issues with him. Your rewrite suggestions take care of the issue, though. I prefer the second because I like the paraphrase of the quote better. I would say "ministry" instead of "ministries", but that's a quibble. --Beirne (talk) 05:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Made the change. "Ministries" refers to different types of ministries: personal appearances, television, magazines, books, a university, others that carried on while he was semi-retired, etc. Obankston (talk) 06:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scandal[edit]

I ask that the following sentence be deleted from the article because it does not quote any reference to substantiate what it claims.

"Scandals persisted through the 1980s as fraudulent healing practices were exposed." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.28.164.2 (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no reference to specifically support the "Scandals" wording, so I've removed that sentence. Anyone who has a source for there being an actual scandal is free to readd that sentence with a supporting reference. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a joke[edit]

Even someone not familiar with the guy can see it reads like an advertisement. The most POV bit is right at the end where it basically reads like an apologists section. This article isn't balanced, and certainly isn't NPOV. And to those who wrote earlier in the talk page such gems as.

"You people have no right to judge the legitamacy of Oral Roberts. Keep objectivity, ok?"

Objectivity is not using sites financed by this mans ministries as sources, or links.

"Your taking these quotes out of context and forgetting that these were directed at an audience who understood what he meant. Please leave the content of these articles to those who have a better understanding of the facts and doctrines of these Christian leaders, not the liberal media"

This is an encylopedia.. the whole point of it is that people reading it who don't know anything about a given subject may get an unbiased view ie NPOV, so leaving it's content to "those who have a better understanding", i.e. Fanboys who won't have a bad thing said against their chosen religious leader, is not a good idea at all.

This article isn't just a joke, it's a disgrace — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.69.7.114 (talk) 07:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this article is a JOKE, Roberts was a known con man. Whoever is editing this article wants to make a con man look like a lovely christian minister. Sellingstuff (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Con man" is a strong claim that would require strong sources, and in any case it would have to be attributed to those specific sources. The article already goes into considerable detail about his controversial life. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://thegazette.com/2009/12/20/oral-roberts-nothing-more-than-a-con-artist

We have a media article now using that term, can you please add to the opening statement something with the term "con man" (because he was this is the default position not the one you are taking) and source that link? ThanksSellingstuff (talk) 07:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Cedar Rapids Gazette is a daily newspaper and a reliable source, but ultimately this is an opinion column from a local newspaper in a city without any particular connection to Roberts. I don't think it's sufficient to warrant adding an incendiary term like "con man" to a position in the lead of the article. As noted, there is already quite a bit of content in the body of the article reporting on crticism of Roberts. I have posted an item at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Oral Roberts inviting additional opinions.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; in addition, it would be a violation of WP:BLP to refer to him as a con man unless he were convicted of a confidence scam. Scr★pIronIV 20:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that WP:BLP probably does not apply here: see WP:BDP. Which does not mean that anything goes of course: NPOV and sourcing requirements always apply. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ref deleted[edit]

I deleted a reference attached to a sentence in the header. I searched for various words used *in* the sentence, in the reference and found none of them. Please attach references to the exact sections they encase, and use *quotes* to indicate what is being exactly said.Wjhonson (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oral Roberts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Oral Roberts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Oral Roberts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Oral Roberts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Oral Roberts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oral Roberts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oral Roberts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference NYT_obit was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oral_Roberts&oldid=1195296328"